Cri-Cri aircraft

Vassilii Khachaturov wrote:


last year at Oshkosh 2003 I have seen a tiny Cri-Cri twin which I really
loved. It is the smallest twin ever built, and it has good aerobatic
performance.

just see this one:
http://www.argo.co.id/asac/cricri.htm

by
--
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

Correction: the weight is 070kg


--
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

Here is a link to another CriCri website:

http://home.comcast.net/~cricri-plane/

I recall seeing that better engines have been found for this
plane, but don't have any more detailed info.

David Johnson

http://www.argo.co.id/asac/cricri.htm


Cute but it guzzles 20gph.
Only a toy...

Yeah, because it uses TINYYYYY veryyyy inefficient JETTT engines.....at low
speeds which make a jet even MORE inefficient (ie HP output = speed times
thrust level, low speed = crappy HP even with decent thrust)

If you used more normal Internal combustion engines, its fuel consumption would
probably a tenth of that or less!

I was intriqued by the Cri Cri and did alot of reading up on it awhile ago....

And it certainly appears that it USED to be a problem to get the RIGHT
size/weight/hp engines that it was designed for....and given how optimized the
design is......anything less than just right would have major impacts....

Now maybe that isnt as bad a problem in these "modern" times....

Or maybe someone should design a Cri Cri 2.0, using the same design philosophy
and goals, but around an appropriate engine that is currently popular/abundant
and is likely to remain around for awhile....

Oh, a tidbit about those tiny jet engines. They are lubricated by aviation
grade jet oil mixed with the fuel.....And the oil is so expensive and the mix
level is so high, that when you burn your fuel, you'd spend for example a 100
for your fuel and 50 dollars or so for your oil! So the fact those little guys
are real fuel guzzlers is about 1.5 times as worse as it seems at first
glance.....not to mention a TBO that could be/probably is amazing low.....

Take care

Blll

Philippe writes:

To day, he fly a glider....

He *could* combine the two...
http://www.alisport.com/video/Jet_Glider.wmv

--kyler

"Vaughn" wrote in message Cute; but I kind of lost my enthusiasm for the
concept after one pranged at
Oshkosh one year in front of the entire airshow crowd. It ended up nearly
at
the crowd line following an apparent engine failure on takeoff, and was
quickly bustled into its covered trailer out of sight.

That accident was caused by improper handling of assymetric thrust. A pilot
with only a single-engine rating could fly a multi-engine plane if the plane
was registered as an experimental. This accident was a supreme act of
condescension for the laws of aerodynamics, not a betrayal by the design.
Any pilot that is proficient in multi-engine operations could have avoided
that accident.

There were some other accidents attributed to the North American builders
replacing roller bearings with plain bearings in the aileron attach points.
The plain bearings wore out quickly and control surface flutter quickly
ensued. I don't find fault with the design because of modifications made
after the design was released.

D.

I know the pilot of that accident and he purposely put it on the ground in
front of the crowd rather than stagger around and possibly get over the
crowd and hit someone. He has ALL the ratings and is ex-military, a very
capable pilot.


"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...
"Vaughn" wrote in message Cute; but I kind of lost my enthusiasm for the
concept after one pranged at
Oshkosh one year in front of the entire airshow crowd. It ended up
nearly
at
the crowd line following an apparent engine failure on takeoff, and was
quickly bustled into its covered trailer out of sight.

That accident was caused by improper handling of assymetric thrust. A
pilot
with only a single-engine rating could fly a multi-engine plane if the
plane
was registered as an experimental. This accident was a supreme act of
condescension for the laws of aerodynamics, not a betrayal by the design.
Any pilot that is proficient in multi-engine operations could have avoided
that accident.

There were some other accidents attributed to the North American builders
replacing roller bearings with plain bearings in the aileron attach
points.
The plain bearings wore out quickly and control surface flutter quickly
ensued. I don't find fault with the design because of modifications made
after the design was released.

D.

"Cy Galley" wrote in message
I know the pilot of that accident and he purposely put it on the ground in
front of the crowd rather than stagger around and possibly get over the
crowd and hit someone. He has ALL the ratings and is ex-military, a very
capable pilot.

Is the design uncontrollable on one engine? Why did he prang it?

D.

From what I've been able to dig up it was flyable on one engine but
was no longer a high performace plane in that state. The article I
read said it could manage a slow climb and sustain 85MPH (not
necessarily at the same time).

I'm really impressed with this design. It carries a payload equal to
its own weight. How many aircraft can do that?

It seems like you get something magic (and dangerous) when you put a 2
stroke engine on a low drag aiframe. Of course you've got that second
model airplane engine as a backup on the cri-cri.

I wish all these guys that produce a design and then give up on it
would officially put it in the public domain.

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message ...
"Cy Galley" wrote in message
I know the pilot of that accident and he purposely put it on the ground in
front of the crowd rather than stagger around and possibly get over the
crowd and hit someone. He has ALL the ratings and is ex-military, a very
capable pilot.

Is the design uncontrollable on one engine? Why did he prang it?

D.

Jay wrote:



I'm really impressed with this design. It carries a payload equal to
its own weight. How many aircraft can do that?

I know the D140 named Abeille (bee) or Mousquetaire
it's a big D112 with O360
550kg empty 1210lbs
1100kg full 2420lbs
another french desing (Delemontez)

Better, you have from Michel Colomban too, the MC100, all aluminium alloy
empty: 202 kg 445lbs
full: 450kg 990lbs
The carbon version is 240kg empty

By
--
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬